(28-10-2015 09:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: But you are also going back and forth now between arguments. You say you aren't keeping guns to protect you from the government, but that your power as a citizen is tied to your possession of firearms?

Which is it? You want guns to protect you from the every day (minimal) dangers of life, or because it holds some sort of protection for you against the government? (the latter of which contradict previous statements from you)

I want to have the option of force in order to protect myself from anyone whose interests are in conflict with my own to the extent that a compromise cannot be reached. That includes any entity ranging from a criminal element or gangs taking advantage of a lapse in government capabilities, to a government taking advantage of a lack of leverage possessed by the people it governs. When I say I'm not concerned with the government at the moment, I'm referring to immediate context. Governments around the world fail, collapse, and change hands on a regular basis. At this particular moment, our government is not in danger of immediate collapse and still chooses to acknowledge the Democratic process, including the above mentioned right to vote and freedom of speech (more or less). Consent alone, however, does not guarantee that this will remain true. What I was getting at above is simply that I recognize that, right now, the biggest threats to our sovereignty are not coming from the government. But that can always change.

Like I said, I don't ascribe to the alarmist conspiracy that our government will dissolve and send us into a spiral of anarchy. And I certainly don't believe that the possibility of that occurrence is high enough to warrant any measure of realistic concern.

It makes for a great movie scenario, but I like to live in a non-fictional world

(28-10-2015 07:25 AM)yakherder Wrote: There were indeed civilian paramilitary militias organized under individual states, but they were not uniformly equipped and held no defined allegiance to the country they were fighting for. Some were lucky enough to have a weapon from their militia's stock, others brought their own guns to the fight, and the rest hoped to pick up something off a dead British soldier. The origins of the 2nd amendment came from even before this, however, when it was critical for citizens to be armed and trained on their own in the absence of a force designated for their protection, which they preferred anyway. The state, as in the United States, did not organize and create a state run military force until after the turn of the century into the 1800s, and it wasn't for the British. It was due to our realization that protecting the nation had to be done beyond one's own borders, something armed citizens aren't exactly ideal for.

No one is debating the observation that there was no state militia before there was a state. Nor is he implying that formation of a national militia was coincident with the formation of the US.

His point (that I and others here clearly support) is that the wording implies that the state's and their militias be protected from disarmament in order for state level protection.

But let's say the wording is intended to extend beyond militias, we live in a different world and the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) intended for the constitution to be open to interpretation (he wanted it rewritten every few decades). The 2nd amendment as it was written and interpreted for the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a valid interpretation for those of us living in the 21st century.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of individuals.

The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all refer to "the People".

Do you think "the People" in the Second Amendment differs from "the People" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

If you are trained properly, licensed, and of sound mental state, then I don't care if you do or do not carry a gun. But I am glad you put "hopefully" in this line, as it indicates that you recognize carrying a gun is NOT a guarantee of safety by any means.

No one here has ever claimed that carrying or having a gun is a guarantee of safety.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

If you are trained properly, licensed, and of sound mental state, then I don't care if you do or do not carry a gun. But I am glad you put "hopefully" in this line, as it indicates that you recognize carrying a gun is NOT a guarantee of safety by any means.

No one here has ever claimed that carrying or having a gun is a guarantee of safety.

(28-10-2015 08:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No one is debating the observation that there was no state militia before there was a state. Nor is he implying that formation of a national militia was coincident with the formation of the US.

His point (that I and others here clearly support) is that the wording implies that the state's and their militias be protected from disarmament in order for state level protection.

But let's say the wording is intended to extend beyond militias, we live in a different world and the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) intended for the constitution to be open to interpretation (he wanted it rewritten every few decades). The 2nd amendment as it was written and interpreted for the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer a valid interpretation for those of us living in the 21st century.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of individuals.

The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all refer to "the People".

Do you think "the People" in the Second Amendment differs from "the People" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?

Considering "the People" make up the militias, it need not differ but also need not necessarily have the same strict usage.

(28-10-2015 09:38 AM)yakherder Wrote: It's not in any way out of the realm of possibility. Regardless, as things stand right now, it's not the government which is my immediate concern.

I'm not sure exactly what you had in mind, but at present I've got what many would refer to as assault rifles, high capacity magazines, about 60,000 rounds of ammunition, 3rd gen night optics, plate carriers, etc. If you're not interested in restricting that, then what exactly are we debating?

I use the term "fair" sarcastically. Life is a game of leverage. Those above mentioned checks and balances recognize that. One of those checks and balances is that the people be armed, thereby maintaining some of that leverage for themselves. Without the threat of force, laws are merely suggestions. That goes both for the people being governed as well as the government governing them.

"I'm not sure exactly what you had in mind, but at present I've got what many would refer to as assault rifles, high capacity magazines, about 60,000 rounds of ammunition, 3rd gen night optics, plate carriers, etc. If you're not interested in restricting that, then what exactly are we debating?"

You sound like a hoarder and a gun enthusiast, not someone who has those things for self defense or protection. So yes, if you want guns for self defense from the average and every day (unlikely) dangers, why do you need any of that?

He is insuring against a worst-case scenario.

Quote:"I use the term "fair" sarcastically. Life is a game of leverage. Those above mentioned checks and balances recognize that. One of those checks and balances is that the people be armed, thereby maintaining some of that leverage for themselves. Without the threat of force, laws are merely suggestions. That goes both for the people being governed as well as the government governing them."

Libertarian bullshit. The power of the people in a democratic country does not come from the possession of arms, but from the right to vote and the freedom of speech and the press.

His point is that the mechanisms of exercising those rights are fundamentally protected from subversion by the powerful by arms.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(28-10-2015 09:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: "I'm not sure exactly what you had in mind, but at present I've got what many would refer to as assault rifles, high capacity magazines, about 60,000 rounds of ammunition, 3rd gen night optics, plate carriers, etc. If you're not interested in restricting that, then what exactly are we debating?"

You sound like a hoarder and a gun enthusiast, not someone who has those things for self defense or protection. So yes, if you want guns for self defense from the average and every day (unlikely) dangers, why do you need any of that?

He is insuring against a worst-case scenario.

Quote:"I use the term "fair" sarcastically. Life is a game of leverage. Those above mentioned checks and balances recognize that. One of those checks and balances is that the people be armed, thereby maintaining some of that leverage for themselves. Without the threat of force, laws are merely suggestions. That goes both for the people being governed as well as the government governing them."

Libertarian bullshit. The power of the people in a democratic country does not come from the possession of arms, but from the right to vote and the freedom of speech and the press.

His point is that the mechanisms of exercising those rights are fundamentally protected from subversion by the powerful by arms.

"He is insuring against a worst-case scenario.

So are people prepping for a zombie apocalypse. That doesn't make it realistic or likely

"His point is that the mechanisms of exercising those rights are fundamentally protected from subversion by the powerful by arms."

Bullshit. Our rights do not exist because the American people can get guns.

^on the above point, would our other rights cease to exist if guns did?

(28-10-2015 10:20 AM)onlinebiker Wrote: Power does not come from the people voting.

Power comes out the barrel of a gun.

If you don't believe that, you'd best get religion and pray that you never find out otherwise.

Look at history. EVERY instance of major change of government ultimately came down to direct force and action by armed men.

Not a bunch of dilettantes flapping their gums at each other.

I wouldn't say most governmental change is really the shift or adjustment period that causes functional shifts. So much of that leads to things being the same way as before but just with other sources of power.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson